It's a deep QB class. Trade down in the 1st and get some picks - the guy the team is targeting may be there later in the first round.

When you draft a qb, you never risk the chance of losing him because you tried squeezing another player out of the deal. And you don't just choose whichever qb falls to you. You identify your guy, and you go and get him. You don't leave the qb position to chance.

The last two teams to pass on a QB with the 1st pick in the last decade plus were the Texans and the Dolphins, to take Mario Williams and Jake Long respectively. Both have been All Pros, but Houston deemed Williams expendable enough to let him walk. Same is gonna happen to Long.

So how much does drafting that "anchor" player at a really valuable position help you anyways? Miami made the right move to take Tannehill, and a lot of people **** on them for it. He's already more important than Jake ******* Long.

The answer is to take a QB, and pray you took the right one. Scared money don't make money.

For the record, Blaine Gabbert is the best type of bust QB that you can get. You know in less than two years that he's not the answer. Where you get hosed is with the Alex Smiths and Sam Bradfords of the world - good enough to stick, not bad enough to replace.

The last two teams to pass on a QB with the 1st pick in the last decade plus were the Texans and the Dolphins, to take Mario Williams and Jake Long respectively. Both have been All Pros, but Houston deemed Williams expendable enough to let him walk. Same is gonna happen to Long.

So how much does drafting that "anchor" player at a really valuable position help you anyways? Miami made the right move to take Tannehill, and a lot of people **** on them for it. He's already more important than Jake ******* Long.

I've said for a long time now that LT is the most overrated position in football. People still don't want to buy it, but it's true. If you have a good qb, you don't need a good left tackle. In fact most of the top qbs in the league DON'T have great left tackles.

You get your qb and build your team around him while he matures. That way your qb and your team talent peak together, and you can make a SB run.

If you build your team then get your qb, your qb is too green to win a SB while your team is SB ready, and by the time your qb is ready (year 4) your team is old and needs to rebuild which takes another 3 years. So you basically waste 6 to 7 years if you do it that way.

New GM anything is possible, but if Im them Im sticking with Phillip. Still a good QB, they just need to put some players and good depth around him. Give him a legit running game because that Norv system aint spit without one.

If they do cut him watch he goes to the Cheifs or Raiders and takes them to the SB, Drew Brees all over again

Are there any "franchise" type QBs in this class, though? I don't believe so. Saddling yourself with a Mark Sanchez, Jake Locker, or Blaine Gabbert will set your team back for years. Christian Ponder is looking like a mistake as well. There's at least as much risk involved with drafting one of these QBs as with passing on them for a better player at a less valued position.

If you're going to gamble on a 1st round QB, and you're drafting near the top, the idea of trading back, grabbing a couple picks, and then rolling the dice seems the most logical. Not in every draft, but certainly in this one. Take advantage of a team desperate for a QB. If you can get even half of what the Skins paid for RGIII, you did good.

I hope people realize that these same arguments are used for guys that did pan out also. Ryan Tannehill most recently. How many teams would love to have Tannehill? It wouldn't have cost the Cardinals more then a 2nd round pick to move up and jump Miami, but maybe Michael Floyd is making that team so much better.

With Tannehill the Cards are in the playoff race, KC surely could have used him. There was all kind of movement in that 5-7 range for a team to make a play there, and either team would love to have him. So what if you draft a bust, KC would be no different right now then what they have been.

I just hate this argument on this site this time of year. You can't keep ignoring drafting a QB just because he's not a Andrew Luck type of prospect. How many people felt Joe Flacco was a franchise QB? How many teams would love to have him? I don't care if a guy isn't a once in a generation prospect, or that he has flaws, according to some people here there are no starting caliber QB's out of this class.

I guess these teams people have been talking about are just going to line up to sign Alex Smith and Michael Vick and call it a day, then continue to pass on QB's until they have the #1 pick and an elite QB waiting on them.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Wright

I guarantee that if someone picks Cam Newton in the Top 5 they will regret it.

I hope people realize that these same arguments are used for guys that did pan out also. Ryan Tannehill most recently. How many teams would love to have Tannehill? It wouldn't have cost the Cardinals more then a 2nd round pick to move up and jump Miami, but maybe Michael Floyd is making that team so much better.

With Tannehill the Cards are in the playoff race, KC surely could have used him. There was all kind of movement in that 5-7 range for a team to make a play there, and either team would love to have him. So what if you draft a bust, KC would be no different right now then what they have been.

I just hate this argument on this site this time of year. You can't keep ignoring drafting a QB just because he's not a Andrew Luck type of prospect. How many people felt Joe Flacco was a franchise QB? How many teams would love to have him? I don't care if a guy isn't a once in a generation prospect, or that he has flaws, according to some people here there are no starting caliber QB's out of this class.

I guess these teams people have been talking about are just going to line up to sign Alex Smith and Michael Vick and call it a day, then continue to pass on QB's until they have the #1 pick and an elite QB waiting on them.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And then people will say "how do the Jets feel about trading up for Mark Sanchez lololololol?"

To which you reply: They made the right move, but they ****** up and took the wrong QB. Shoulda taken the Freesus.

Taking a non-perfect QB isn't where teams screw up. They screw up by taking the wrong one.

Same goes for the 49ers and Alex Smith. How much would Braylon, Ronnie, Caddy, Cedric Benson have helped? They made the right move, took the wrong QB.

I believe that you take whatever player best gives you a chance to be competitive and win. The QB of the future is a load of crap unless his value is simply too much ala Aaron Rodgers and Green Bay. I disagree with letting a QB sit for a year. A good coach will cater his offense to the QB and allow the QB, if he really has what it takes to make it in the NFL, to progress and move through the growing pains. Coaches should draft QBs even if they are not the clear cut #1 overall in the first round only if they truly believe they can give that team a shot to win.

Mark Sanchez has not worked out for the Jets but if Tannebaum truly believed he was the player that could lead his team to victory I see no fault in that selection.

Christian Ponder is another guy who is still a big question mark, but I do not question the selection if it was made believing he can be a guy to make the team competitive.

The list goes on Tannehill, Freeman, Gabbertt, Dalton, and even the infamous Brandon Weeden.

Thus, my answer to the thread's question is simple: A QB needy team should only pass on a QB if the staff truly doubts and questions the QBs ability to make the team competitive.

However, the unfortunate truth is... staff do not do this. The NFL is a business and GMs and Coaches, just as much as anyone, do not want to lose their jobs. The selection of QBs, in essence, buys time for the staff unless the death knell has already rung or other circumstances like new ownership (See Spagnuolo, See Shurmur probably after this year). That is why QBs do get selected much earlier than they should. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't. I can't read minds so I can't tell if the staff really believes the QB gives them the best chance to be competitive but in certain cases, like the Browns with Weeden, desperation moves can be quite obvious.

See, I think you DO take a QB just to take a QB, in most instances. Obviously, you don't take a mid-round talent in the top 5 because you're scared of missing out on him 32 picks later. But I believe if your team has any question whatsoever about the QB position, and there's a guy available when you pick who's graded within 10-15 picks of where you're slotted, you draft that guy. Like the Dolphins did with Tannehill this year. It's just way too important of a position to pass up. There's not a DE or OT (other typical top 10 picks) that's going to have the impact of a guy who literally touches the ball on every play.

Jake Long is a great player, but where would Miami be with Matt Ryan? Where would Atlanta be without him after the Vick situation?

I don't think it's as big of a deal anymore to take the "wrong" QB. You're not committing 40-50Mil to these guys anymore. And it's not like Jamarcus Russell set the Raiders back several years....being the Raiders set them back several years. With the offensive friendliness of the NFL now, it's a lot easier for QBs to have success provided they have good offensive coaching around them.

As for the teams with current QB issues: KC and AZ haven't taken QBs early when they should/could have. The Jets, Titans, and Jags don't have good offensive coaching.

See, I think you DO take a QB just to take a QB, in most instances. Obviously, you don't take a mid-round talent in the top 5 because you're scared of missing out on him 32 picks later. But I believe if your team has any question whatsoever about the QB position, and there's a guy available when you pick who's graded within 10-15 picks of where you're slotted, you draft that guy. Like the Dolphins did with Tannehill this year. It's just way too important of a position to pass up. There's not a DE or OT (other typical top 10 picks) that's going to have the impact of a guy who literally touches the ball on every play.

Jake Long is a great player, but where would Miami be with Matt Ryan? Where would Atlanta be without him after the Vick situation?

I don't think it's as big of a deal anymore to take the "wrong" QB. You're not committing 40-50Mil to these guys anymore. And it's not like Jamarcus Russell set the Raiders back several years....being the Raiders set them back several years. With the offensive friendliness of the NFL now, it's a lot easier for QBs to have success provided they have good offensive coaching around them.

As for the teams with current QB issues: KC and AZ haven't taken QBs early when they should/could have. The Jets, Titans, and Jags don't have good offensive coaching.

I like this point, but I think it also important to make the right decision. You don't take a player because you simply need that position. It hardly ever works out unless he also happens to be the best player available on your board when you're on the clock.

You are right selecting a QB no longer sets you back as much but it is all about if the staff really believes in them. I have no problem waiting for in round 2 for someone I believe is simply a better for my offense and/or I truly believe he can be developed into a good NFL QB. I do not want to draft the guy because he's the best rated on the board. I think Jim Harbaugh's approach is similar to mine in this regard. He wanted Kaep and got Kaep, he didn't need to take him in round 1 and didn't have to take a QB he did not desire to have on his roster like Locker, Gabbert or Ponder. Not to say that those guys can never be good players, it is just that Harbaugh did not believe they were right for his team, or at the very least, were not as valuable to his team as Aldon Smith would be. Harbaugh is looking pretty good right now with that choice.

I think if it was consensus scouting opinion that CK was going to be gone in the top 15 picks, Harbaugh may have made a different decision instead of taking Aldon.

Or the Kaepernick pick may just have been a BPA pick by the 49ers since he really didn't know what he had in Alex Smith yet.

I don't think it was necessarily a shrewd pick by SF, although Harbaugh appears to be very high on CK's upside and is starting him on a team primed for a SB run.

If Harbaugh came into the 49ers organization and believed QB was the team's biggest need maybe he doesn't take Aldon Smith.
Or Harbaugh could be one of those guys who thinks he can take almost any QB with a decent skillset and coach them up.

While a team can't just wait for the next Luck or RGIII they also can't take someone they don't believe in. So if you find a guy who you believe in you have to do what you can to get him, even over other needs.

__________________
BK

Quote:

Originally Posted by AcheTen

JPP is a better and more productive player than Brandon Graham

Quote:

Originally Posted by abaddon41_80

Is Shaun Hill a top 10 QB? Definitely not. Is he a top 20 one? Almost certainly.

After some fluke early success by guys like Ponder I was starting to change my opinion on this to basically take a QB if you can since with today's joke NFL rules anyone can succeed in the right situation. Now that it has passed I'm still pretty far over on the needle to the "take anyone who was successful and special in college" kick. The only guy I really would've missed using that is Dalton.

That means a guy like Klein is in play for me. At least if he busts you'll know it immediately.

If you can't find a better QB than Chad Henne or Brady Quinn in the 1st round, why would you waste a 1st round pick on a QB? Desperate teams end up with Blaine Gabbert and Christian Ponder and they lose a lot of games before realizing the big mistake. There is a big board with the best players available, so there is no reason to ignore that board to add a low quality QB prospect.

I think TACKLE summed it up well. If you don't have a franchise QB and there's a guy on the board you think will be a good NFL quarterback, you take him. Otherwise, go with a different position (although there are situations where you can take a QB if you already have a good one, obviously it worked out well for the Packers). Passing on a guy you think is a franchise guy is a mistake if you need one and taking a guy you're not confident in just because you need a franchise guy is a mistake as well.

Very well put! Any team that believes in the top QB on their board will draft him ASAP, trading back won't be an option otherwise they risk losing the guy they want.
Any QB hungry team will draft a QB if they have faith in the guy, trading back is for teams whose fans enjoy being a bottom feeder.

If you can't find a better QB than Chad Henne or Brady Quinn in the 1st round, why would you waste a 1st round pick on a QB? Desperate teams end up with Blaine Gabbert and Christian Ponder and they lose a lot of games before realizing the big mistake. There is a big board with the best players available, so there is no reason to ignore that board to add a low quality QB prospect.

Because the bust rate for other positions is the same as QB, and I've already pointed out that drafting an All-Pro at a hugely valuable position doesn't do **** for you unless you already have a QB.

Again, ask Miami and Houston how important it was to get Jake Long and Mario Williams.

Scared money don't make money, and you can't win the lottery without buying a ticket.

Drafting a bust isn't going to set the team back with a ridiculous amount of money put into these guys anymore. If you hit with a QB, your team could be raking in the revenue for 10+ years. I bet with the new rookie salary structure, teams will be willing to give up on a guy earlier (after two, maybe three, years with minimal progress) than they used to be.

So right now I say the Chiefs have to draft a QB, mainly to keep their fan base happy. Cardinals definitely should get a new guy in there and the Eagles will probably get a new staff that might want to pick up a new QB.

If I'm the Bills or the Jags, I'm waiting until next year. I never liked Gabbert as a prospect, but honestly, these guys aren't much better. And the Bills could go one more year with Fitzpatrick and get another receiving option to team with Spiller/Jackson. Their defense should improve by next year with a couple more pieces. Right now the Bills are projected at pick 11, in which they probably could go BPA and then pick up a receiver in round 2 such as Robert Woods or Tavon Austin (who would add a great dimension in their offense).

Rumors circulating that the Bills like Mike Glennon. I think they go QB this year but I wouldn't mind if we went WR/LB/DE/CB with our first few picks. They're right on the edge of being a playoff contender year in, year out.